food garden of eden

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
Post Reply
grayham
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:49 am

food garden of eden

Post by grayham » Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:55 pm

i disagree with the host on 14.6.broadcast in which he said that the animals mice etc.would of been food for the other animals.other wise the earth would be over populated with them.the bible does not say that. gen 1v30 says the herbs and plants are the food they are to eat.only after the flood was man to eat meat.we do not know what the world was like before the fall.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: food garden of eden

Post by Paidion » Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:43 pm

Why are you so insistent about disagreeing with Steve about EVERYTHING? Is there something you have against him personally?
I have disagreed with him, too, and strongly... but I agree with him on most matters. He is wise and perceptive and relates well to people. I have met him and found him to be a likeable man; I very much enjoyed my time with him.

I suggest you change your attitude, and stop opposing everything he teaches. God does not overlook the actions of one who comes against a man of God!
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

grayham
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:49 am

Re: food garden of eden

Post by grayham » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:18 pm

i totaly agree with you .i have nothing against him i like his teachings.and i know we can dissagree on scripture.would you say though on this question i am right about the food before the flood.yes or no.and steve had got it wrong.be truthful now.?

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: food garden of eden

Post by backwoodsman » Sat Jun 16, 2018 6:58 pm

grayham wrote:i totaly agree with you .i have nothing against him i like his teachings.and i know we can dissagree on scripture.would you say though on this question i am right about the food before the flood.yes or no.and steve had got it wrong.be truthful now.?
I doubt anyone will be able to answer that because your post is largely incomprehensible. Maybe you can get someone to help you clean up your grammar and wording at least a little, so we have a fighting chance of understanding what you're trying to say.

It strikes me as a little bizarre that you say you like Steve's teachings, even though you apparently misunderstand him most of the time, if what you've posted here is any indicator.

I would suggest you carefully reread Steve's reply to you in the Ephesians 2 thread, then carefully consider what you can do to improve your comprehension, or at least to correct your misunderstandings. Maybe it would be wise to ask whether you correctly understood something before going on the attack over it.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: food garden of eden

Post by steve » Sat Jun 16, 2018 9:20 pm

Graham,

You wrote:
i disagree with the host on 14.6.broadcast in which he said that the animals mice etc.would of been food for the other animals.other wise the earth would be over populated with them.the bible does not say that.
You may be right. Perhaps no animals ate other animals before the flood, but the Bible doesn't say that either.

You quote a verse that says that all the vegetation was food for the animals and for man (Gen.1:30). This does not rule-out that some animals may have eaten both plants and animals. Canines and bears are an example of animals known to eat meat, but which also will eat non-meat foods. They are omnivores. Perhaps some animals that are now strictly carnivores were omnivores originally.

The repeated word "every", in Genesis 1:30, may be an example of hyperbole (a phenomenon not uncommon in scripture). That is, in saying "every beast", "every bird", and "everything that creeps" has a share in the abundant vegetation as at least a part of their diet, scripture may simply be alluding to the fact that the majority of such animals will, in fact, indulge in that diet. There may have been a few exclusive carnivores (e.g., felines, vultures, spiders) that were exceptions to the general rule. It is difficult to believe that God created the high-tech echo-location system by which bats hone in on moving prey in flight, if His preference was that they should hunt nothing but berries.

All I can say is that we don't know everything, and we are in no position to be dogmatic in the negative on this point.

The wording of Genesis 9:3 strongly suggests that humans did not normally eat animal food prior to the flood. This fact would tell us nothing of the eating habits of omnivorous or carnivorous animal species.

Many evangelicals assume that there was no animal death prior to the fall, because Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 speak of death entering human history through Adam's sin. Both passages are talking specifically about human death. The former passage links individual "death" with individual "sin" (a uniquely human phenomenon), and the latter passage contrasts Adam's introduction of "death" with Christ's introducing the resurrection of the dead—which, we may fairly assume, is the destiny only of humans. It is not Paul's intention to argue that animal death (and plant death!) were introduced by the fall.

It is possible that no animals ever died prior to the fall—assuming the fall occurred within the first few days after human creation. But this does not mean that, had man never sinned, and continually ate of the tree of life, thus living forever, we should assume that animals would also have freely eaten of that tree and been given immortality as well. What a world it would be if houseflies, mosquitos, vermin, and bacteria (for example) were to live and reproduce forever without ever dying. The ocean would be so full, by now, that fish would have no room to swim. We would still have with us every horsefly (and mosquito, and rat) that ever lived since the creation. There would, seemingly, be room for little else on the planet by now. Certainly, God did not set up a situation that would ideally (that is, without the fall having happened) have such a result.

There is no suggestion in scripture that animals ever possessed immortality—nor were intended to. If they did not, then, with or without the fall, they would naturally die. What would become of their bodies? It is a fair assumption that they would become food for other animals—if only to such animals as maggots and bacteria! That animals' bodies would eventually be food for worms is no more or less scriptural than that they might be intended as food for predators and scavengers as well.

There is an inescapable logic in the humorous retort to vegetarianianism that used to appear on bumper stickers: "If God didn't intend for us [or, we might add, animals] to eat animals, why did He make them out of meat?" Why indeed?

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: food garden of eden

Post by TK » Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:58 am

I just read this from an article on the creation.com website:
Actually, there is a hint in the Bible that there was pre-Flood carnivory, although I won’t be dogmatic about it. That is, when Cain was enraged that God (YHWH) rejected his sacrifice, God counseled him that “sin is crouching at the door” (Genesis 4:7b). God pictures sin as ‘crouching’, but this means ‘ready to spring forth’. The same imagery is used in Genesis 49:9, “he crouched as a lion”. Indeed, in Genesis 4:7, the verb rōbets (רבץ) is masculine to agree with the implied wild beast, not feminine to agree with ‘sin’. So sin is like a lion waiting to pounce on Cain and consume him.

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”